Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]

[Rienzphotoz]

wait there is no such forum coz DR in sensors holds no value for those who really know how to work DR with proper lighting and diffusion.

and there he goes again

and you wonder where the DR crowd gets the mad, simply mad idea, that the fanboys ever say such things about more DR is useless or is only needed by incompetents

BTW, please come to my next shoot and make sure to bring enough lights to light up a few square miles and enough helpers to do it all instantly at the snap of a finger and oh make sure they do it in a way that looks natural and that none of their equipment shows up in the shot. And make sure you are always there at a snap, whenever needed.

Send me return air tickets plus all expenses paid and I'll show you how I do it with my Canon sensor to get the same results.

 

[unfocused]

I think you forgot to include Ansel Adams? You know, the guy that invented the zone based metering system?

PrivatebyDesign has answered that one far better than I could (as usual).

Anyway, do you have an example to draw on that includes modern day people and art rather than historical?

Ryan McGinley, Rineke Dijkstra, Martin Parr, Nan Goldin, Susan Meiselas would all be good ones to start with. And...by the way...Robert Frank is still living.

 

[jrista]

I think you forgot to include Ansel Adams? You know, the guy that invented the zone based metering system?

The Zone System is not a "zone based metering system" it is a system of prioritising the import part of a scenes dynamic range before exposure to maximise that tonal areas reproduction in a subsequent print. Printing is the be all and end all of Adams' system, how best to expose the scene within the DR limitations of the camera system to achieve what he foresees in a print.

Adams was happy to work within the limitations of his systems DR, that certainly had less than the Sony/Nikon sensor, he was all about realising his artistic vision regardless of where in the range of tones the primary subject was, he blew highlights and blocked shadows when he wanted. His point was to expose the key tones correctly and let the rest fall where it may.

Sounds like he'd hate HDR then, don't you agree?

Are you truly serious? Or are you just trolling? Because this is a ludicrous response....

 

[privatebydesign]

"So you've never heard someone say "I like the green from Nikon DLSRs better" or "I like the blue from Canon DSLRs better"?"

Only people who don't understand RAW files, who don't use camera profiles (that are basically nicely designed GUI one button programs now) and who don't know what they are talking about.

I can use a Nikon and a Canon at a wedding and both sets of files look identical, same skin tones, same dress colour, everything. RAW data is just that, it doesn't reduce image quality one iota to tell a pixel registering as 243,127,76 to display at 240,125,84.

You need to learn about colour dude.

Now explain to me, which of these two swatches is the original and which is degraded by adjusting the colour.

 

[jrista]

That said, color reproduction in the digital world is 99% post-process mathematics...tone curves and camera profiles and custom color channel tuning. Color accuracy, or achieving a personal aesthetic color style, has very little to do with out of camera color these days.

And you know this because...?

As for noise, Canon's have no more or less photon shot noise than any other camera...they have more read noise, however that only exists in the deep shadows, and only exhibits if you LIFT the deep shadows.

And you know this because...?

I know it because I've studied the subject. It's a bit of a hobby (a very time consuming one...)

It is also common sense. If color wasn't primarily a mathematical thing, then why is it that the 5D III photographs I see from the world's best...landscape photographers, portrait photographers, macro photographers, etc....have color that is just as good as any photo from the D800?

So you've never heard someone say "I like the green from Nikon DLSRs better" or "I like the blue from Canon DSLRs better"?

Sure I have. I've also seen their results, which, as I said, look nothing like what actually came directly out of the camera.

And if what you were saying was true then the graph attached at the bottom would show both lines together, right?

The graph represents an imperceptible difference that can only be discerned by software. And, again...it is based off the strait out of camera RAW. You can RADICALLY change those results by tweaking the raw with a very basic algorithm. You can make the 5D III better than the D800, or make the D800's margin even wider. Color is all about mathematical processing.

Depending on how much time you spend in "Photoshop", you can change the colour or compensate for the lack of colour, white balance, etc, to come close to making it not matter which camera you use. But just as using RAW is better than using JPEG (because the data you have available is better to work with), so too is higher quality data (from e.g. the D800) better.

The D800, in some respects, does have MORE data. It has less read noise, so it preserves more data in the shadows. Beyond that, "higher quality"? Nah. It's all bits...ones and zeros, encoding some known original quantity that can be reduced, divided, and redistributed however we please. We aren't talking about preserving analog data in it's original untainted form here.

Think of it like comparing a purely analog audio system in a hard core audiophile's home, the best of the best, $400,000 worth of vibration replication perfection, reading a pure analog signal off a pristine record played on a turntable with 10 degrees of vibration reduction, piping it through the highest quality vacuum tubes and analog processors, sending the filtered signal that is nearly entirely free of noise along the highest quality cabling to a pair of $100,000 (each) speakers, set in an audio room with the most exquisite wood supports and wall paneling that enrich the unmitigated perfection of musical sound permeating every cell of your body (trust me...it really IS like that! ) The equipment, in that circumstance, is EVERYTHING. You can't beat audio from such a system, it is pure bliss, music of the gods to the ears...literally.

When it comes to playing back CDs? There are a few things you can do in order to improve the quality of your sound. You can buy high quality electronics that don't introduce much additional noise of their own, and for every bit less noise, you pay another order of magnitude in cost. But the simple fact of the matter is that a CD has already been limited, already been restricted, already been diminished from the original source. It doesn't matter if your working with 20 bits or 24 bits, the original unfettered, pure fidelity of the native analog signal is lost. You cannot replicate it, no matter how good your equipment. The vast majority of people who play their CDs can't tell the difference between 44khz and 48kz, let alone 96khz...or 20 bits vs. 24 bits. The frequencies that those bits represent, while a $100,000 CD playback system may preserve them, are beyond the average range of human sensitivity.

A DSLR is basically synonymous with Audio CD systems. It doesn't matter if your color quality is 23 bits or 24 bits...the original fidelity of your native image signal, the one projected by the lens, was lost the moment a sensor packed with evenly arranged discrete sensing elements recorded that signal, and converted it into a sequence of...numbers. From that point on, everything about that image was digital and mathematical.

Now, if your personal style is to take photos and print em strait up, without any processing, then sure...these minute differences in cameras could very well matter. You might not ACTUALLY be able to tell the difference, but if knowing that one particular camera has half a bit more accurate color reproduction makes you feel as though your raw work is better, more power to ya. If you are like 99% of the rest of the billion plus photographers on planet Earth...sorry, they don't really matter much at all. The most significant benefit of the D800 is its extra DR, but that simply improves your editing latitude, allowing you to extract detail in areas where detail was lost to electronic noise. It doesn't do a damn thing for the final color quality of your post-process results. And it only does it at low ISO, to boot, so the value of improved DR is limited in applicability.

Not only that, why is it that the color of the worlds best photographs that were taken with a 5D III look ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like the RAW images look when taken strait out of the camera (i.e. directly off the memory card without processing)? The color quality of a photograph has nothing to do with the strength of the CFA, or how the colored pixels are arranged, or how much native dynamic range the sensor has. Color quality is a matter of personal style. Each and every digital photographer produces THEIR OWN color style, and it never resembles the native camera output.

Quite right however everyone wants the best possible source material to work with or else they wouldn't use RAW, would they?

RAW, sure. Doesn't matter what camera the RAW comes from. Again, the RAW is the source. What you end up with rarely ever looks like the source, or is even "color accurate", because it is based on artistic vision, personal style, not hardware. What matters is what you end up with...the destination, per-se. I'd challenge you to pick out which camera made which photo if I presented you a range of, say, landscape photos from some photo site or sites (that had all EXIF information stripped). You would certainly randomly guess a few correctly, but in general it would all just be guesses. You can't tell from the final results of an artists processing where their photos came from. It's all the same in the end...the result of mathematic functions applied to an input stream of pixels, rendering an output stream of pixels. Discrete data, in digital form, all having lost the purity and infinite precision of the original. The data doesn't matter. What matters is the photographer's vision.

I think unfocused put it best:

You don't suppose he was important because of the strength of his vision? Naw...couldn't be that!

The quality of a photograph, assuming it was captured properly, has everything to do with the photographer. Artistic vision is what makes a good photograph good.

Cameras are simply about enabling the photographer to capture photos well. It doesn't matter how good a camera you have, or how good it's native color reproduction...if the photographer has no vision, they will never make visionary photographs...

I know a lot about the technical aspects of photography. They matter, because that knowledge helps me choose the tool that will best service my skill to realize my artistic vision. That said, the thing I care about most, more than the technology, is: How do my photographs look?

I have examples posted all over these forums, if you wish to take a look. I get a lot of compliments, but the simple fact of the matter is I'm rarely satisfied with my work.

I wouldn't want to be too quick on that as a lot of the material I've seen here and the "wow, cool" means a lot of junk is praised when it shouldn't be.

Nice. Clever, underhanded way to fling out an insult. Your very good at that, I applaud your skill...you've apparently put just as much time and effort into honing that as I do into honing the art of my photography.

I would be curious to know if you honestly think my work is "junk", though...as I suspect your words were simply poorly chosen:

http://www.jonrista.com

 

[eml58]

I have examples posted all over these forums, if you wish to take a look. I get a lot of compliments, but the simple fact of the matter is I'm rarely satisfied with my work. I don't blame my lack of satisfaction on my equipment. My equipment is excellent, even though these days it is technologically inferior. I blame my lack of satisfaction for not having the ability to fully realize my vision...what I see in my minds eye is often not what I see in my results. No amount of equipment will ever fix that...doesn't matter how much DR Sony and Nikon pump out...the only thing that can fix the deficiency in my art is a continued, exerted effort to improve it myself.

Lovely stuff, it's what I read CR for, small pieces of Eloquence, be it technical, Images or just plain nicely put.

Thank You jrista, honestly made my day.

 

[Eldar]

I have examples posted all over these forums, if you wish to take a look. I get a lot of compliments, but the simple fact of the matter is I'm rarely satisfied with my work. I don't blame my lack of satisfaction on my equipment. My equipment is excellent, even though these days it is technologically inferior. I blame my lack of satisfaction for not having the ability to fully realize my vision...what I see in my minds eye is often not what I see in my results. No amount of equipment will ever fix that...doesn't matter how much DR Sony and Nikon pump out...the only thing that can fix the deficiency in my art is a continued, exerted effort to improve it myself.

Lovely stuff, it's what I read CR for, small pieces of Eloquence, be it technical, Images or just plain nicely put.

Thank You jrista, honestly made my day.

+1
If I should rate my missed shots (of which there are plenty) and split them in a My-fault:Equipment-fault rating, it would probably be a 99:1

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I have examples posted all over these forums, if you wish to take a look. I get a lot of compliments, but the simple fact of the matter is I'm rarely satisfied with my work.

I wouldn't want to be too quick on that as a lot of the material I've seen here and the "wow, cool" means a lot of junk is praised when it shouldn't be.

WOW! ... jrista was talking about his images which you may wanna look at ... and you imply that they are "junk"? ... man that is rude.

 

[Eldar]

I have examples posted all over these forums, if you wish to take a look. I get a lot of compliments, but the simple fact of the matter is I'm rarely satisfied with my work.

I wouldn't want to be too quick on that as a lot of the material I've seen here and the "wow, cool" means a lot of junk is praised when it shouldn't be.

WOW! ... jrista was talking about his images which you may wanna look at ... and you imply that they are "junk"? ... man that is rude.

Dilbert, you just became the last entry on my Ignore list. I have seen nothing from you I´d like to see again. Your´re a joke and a rude one on top of that!

 

[jrista]

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say my work is particularly great or anything. Not at all. Just that I don't think it's "junk"... I've never been satisfied with it, but I don't think it's junk.

 

[Eldar]

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say my work is particularly great or anything. Not at all. Just that I don't think it's "junk"... I've never been satisfied with it, but I don't think it's junk.

Neither do we!

 

[J.R.]

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say my work is particularly great or anything. Not at all. Just that I don't think it's "junk"... I've never been satisfied with it, but I don't think it's junk.

Neither do we!

+1... Jon, there are some posters here who simply need to be ignored.

 

[eml58]

I wouldn't want to be too quick on that as a lot of the material I've seen here and the "wow, cool" means a lot of junk is praised when it shouldn't be.

Well that's a real pity dilbert, it's a reaction one would expect from an immature 10 year old, when your frustrated at not winning the argument, you resort to blanket insults in the hope that the shock factor will win you the point, it's just not how mature adults conduct themselves, perhaps it's time to take a break.

On the the point of "Images" good or bad, most people that actually post images on CR do so because they want to share these Images with other like minded people, not all the Images Posted are or claim to be "Ansel Adams" quality, they don't need to be, most post Images for constructive feed back in an endeavour to better their Photography, and most people that understand this give constructive criticism, constructive criticism is not the same as your comment above, your comment, unfortunately, is just plain bad manners.

And yes, often less than stellar Images receive positive reviews from people on CR, it's called "being positive", or "being nice", which seems to me to be so much easier than the opposite, which in case I need to spell it out, is "being negative" or "being an arsehole".

 

[eml58]

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say my work is particularly great or anything. Not at all. Just that I don't think it's "junk"... I've never been satisfied with it, but I don't think it's junk.

Neither do we!

Absolutely, neither do we, in fact I've looked at your website and find your work damn fine.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say my work is particularly great or anything. Not at all. Just that I don't think it's "junk"... I've never been satisfied with it, but I don't think it's junk.

Neither do we!

Absolutely, neither do we, in fact I've looked at your website and find your work damn fine.

AMEN! ... I've seen many of the images posted by jrista both in CR and on his website - they are brilliant ... the only way someone can call those images "junk" is if one is being deliberately obtuse ... either that or they probably need a new Sony sensor in their brain so they can recognize the DR in those images - no wait, they already have that sensor, (in their brain), and yet it does not seem to do a good job of recognizing what is good and what is junk ... well so much for its DR capability ;D

 

[J.R.]

I wouldn't want to be too quick on that as a lot of the material I've seen here and the "wow, cool" means a lot of junk is praised when it shouldn't be.

On the the point of "Images" good or bad, most people that actually post images on CR do so because they want to share these Images with other like minded people, not all the Images Posted are or claim to be "Ansel Adams" quality, they don't need to be, most post Images for constructive feed back in an endeavour to better their Photography, and most people that understand this give constructive criticism, constructive criticism is not the same as your comment above, your comment, unfortunately, is just plain bad manners.

And yes, often less than stellar Images receive positive reviews from people on CR, it's called "being positive", or "being nice", which seems to me to be so much easier than the opposite, which in case I need to spell it out, is "being negative" or "being an arsehole".

Well said!

BTW, has dilbert ever posted photos his masterpieces of artwork on CR?

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I wouldn't want to be too quick on that as a lot of the material I've seen here and the "wow, cool" means a lot of junk is praised when it shouldn't be.

On the the point of "Images" good or bad, most people that actually post images on CR do so because they want to share these Images with other like minded people, not all the Images Posted are or claim to be "Ansel Adams" quality, they don't need to be, most post Images for constructive feed back in an endeavour to better their Photography, and most people that understand this give constructive criticism, constructive criticism is not the same as your comment above, your comment, unfortunately, is just plain bad manners.

And yes, often less than stellar Images receive positive reviews from people on CR, it's called "being positive", or "being nice", which seems to me to be so much easier than the opposite, which in case I need to spell it out, is "being negative" or "being an arsehole".

Well said!

BTW, has dilbert ever posted photos his masterpieces of artwork on CR?

I know of several of his master-p!sses ... one of which is on the previous page

 

[J.R.]

I wouldn't want to be too quick on that as a lot of the material I've seen here and the "wow, cool" means a lot of junk is praised when it shouldn't be.

On the the point of "Images" good or bad, most people that actually post images on CR do so because they want to share these Images with other like minded people, not all the Images Posted are or claim to be "Ansel Adams" quality, they don't need to be, most post Images for constructive feed back in an endeavour to better their Photography, and most people that understand this give constructive criticism, constructive criticism is not the same as your comment above, your comment, unfortunately, is just plain bad manners.

And yes, often less than stellar Images receive positive reviews from people on CR, it's called "being positive", or "being nice", which seems to me to be so much easier than the opposite, which in case I need to spell it out, is "being negative" or "being an arsehole".

Well said!

BTW, has dilbert ever posted photos his masterpieces of artwork on CR?

Why would I want to?

Because regardless of how good or bad they are, you'd all just rip it to shreds anyway.

I'm sure I won't be doing that regardless of who took them because an image might mean nothing to you but may mean the world to the person who made it. Nevertheless, IMHO it is poor form to call someone's images junk while not posting your own.

 

[M.ST]

deleted

 

[Don Haines]

Hah, ever count sprocket holes in a partially exposed roll of film in a light tight bag so you could use the rest of it? If you haven't, forget your film references.

No, but I have rewound film back into the canister, keeping track of how many exposures were taken, and at some later time fished the leader back out, reloaded the film, and taken lens cap shots till I got to unexposed film, and carried on from there..... Does that count?

And I would carry a body loaded with 100 and a second loaded with fast film.....